MacNeil error.

• Author: Hodges, Glenn
• Position: Notes on inaccuracies in 'MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour' news television program

People watch The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour because it's Serious Television News. Not bound to 22 minutes of commercial-driven images like the networks, the PBS show penetrates issues with in-depth reports and debates. It needn't entertain--it educates.

At least that's the line.

In reality, the NewsHour suffers from a common television news malady: It often lets opposing parties face off and volley dubious "facts" and assertions--without being challenged by the moderators. There's no doubt that Robin MacNeil and Jim Lehrer are intelligent and charming. But because they face different and complex issues every day, they don't always have the knowledge, or the confidence, to ask the clarifying questions. And it's the viewer who pays the price.

This shortcoming is most visible when the show takes on complicated subjects, as it did on May 10 when the news of the day was Medicare reform. Senate Republicans had just announced their plan to cut $250 billion in the future growth of Medicare, and the NewsHour invited two senators to debate the issue.

First, the NewsHour's background report filled in some facts: Beneficiaries pay about $2,800 annually for their medical care, double what it cost them only seven years ago. People are living longer and taking advantage of an increasing number of expensive medical procedures. Medicare will cost the federal government $176 billion this year, and twice as much by 2002, leaving Medicare's trust fund broke.

With Medicare costs exploding--spending on the program quadrupled between 1980 and 1994--the need to reform the program is obvious. But is the Republican plan a smart one? What are its flaws? What would the Democrats do? macNeil/Lehrer's debate that evening sought answers from Senators Chris Dodd and Judd Gregg. But few answers came, as moderator Jim Lehrer allowed the senators to release a torrent of errors, inconsistencies, and half-truths.

The following annotation of the debate suggests some of the questions that could have been asked and points that could have been made for the purpose of clarification. Of course, we wouldn't expect them all to be raised in a single show, but the NewsHour certainly should have hit more than it did.

Still smarting from the Republican's obstruction of health care reform in 1994, Democrats are eager to punch back. Defending Medicare--and its constituency of over 34 million senior citizens--against the ruthless Republicans is the perfect opportunity. In that vein, Dodd asserts that the Republican plan goes way too far. Next he argues that it doesn't go far enough. Lehrer doesn't point out the inconsistency.

Dodd must be confused. There have been no Medicare cuts under the Clinton Administration.

What extended the fund's solvency was Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction bill, which expanded the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax to cover all earned income, and earmarked an increase in income taxes on Social Security benefits for the Medicare trust fund.

Dodd has a point. It would be better to reform Medicare along with the overall health care system since their costs are so closely linked. Unrestrained Medicare payments are a prime reason health care costs began to spiral in the late sixties and early seventies. The Monthly has argued for years that a well-designed single-payer system like Canada's would solve many of our most pressing health care problems, including those of Medicare. Lehrer should have asked Dodd what he meant by saying it should be reformed "in the context of health care overall." Lehrer should have also pointed out that because overall reform is unlikely in the near future, we still need to do whatever can be done about Medicare now. In the next two years Medicare costs will increase by more than 20 percent.

Not so. The "trust fund" is a convenient way of describing how much money the government plans to spend on Medicare, but the program is integrated into the federal budget--if the trust fund runs out of money, the shortfall is paid from the general fund. This may increase the deficit, but it won't spell the end of Medicare. Raising the specter of "no insurance program for senior citizens" is a scare tactic, designed to herd public opinion into the Republicans' corral.

Is Gregg forgetting that the Republican plan calls for increasing beneficiaries' share of the premium for Medicare Part B (the part of the program that covers doctor visits and other non-hospital costs)? Seniors' share of the premium is currently 31 percent, and would revert to 25 percent by 1996 under present law. Senate Republicans are proposing an increase to around 35 percent, possibly...